Encouraging results were found for several biomarkers, alone or in combination. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
29,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
In community and clinical settings, SCC predict both dementia and depression in the absence of dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 6,357 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In adjusted models, higher concentrations of p-tau181 (β per year 0·93 [95% CI 0·71 to 1·16]; p<0·0001), p-tau217 (β per year 1·31 [1·03 to 1·58]; p<0·0001), neurofilament light chain (β per year 0·76 [0·56 to 0·96]; p<0·0001), and GFAP (β per year 0·37 [0·21 to 0·53]; p<0·0001) were associated with an accelerated decline of chair-stand performance over time. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 3,363 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
69/100
The available evidence suggests that ethnicity and race may influence blood biomarker concentrations. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The recent development of ultrasensitive technology allows the determination of blood-based biomarkers with high sensitivity, thus facilitating the early detection of AD through the analysis of easily obtained biological samples. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In AD-converters (N = 158, 377 samples), higher plasma GFAP levels are observed 10 years prior to the onset of cognitive impairment due to AD compared with individuals who remain cognitively unimpaired (N = 160, 379 samples). 3 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 158 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The present study suggested that serum SIRT1 might be an early promising diagnostic biomarker for Alzheimer's Disease. 3 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 26 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Blood biomarkers for dementia have the potential to identify preclinical disease and improve participant selection for clinical trials. 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,642 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disease characterised by neuropathological hallmarks, including extracellular amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Physical function is strongly associated with cognitive function in the Chinese elderly, and brain Aβ deposition partly mediates the linkage in women. 4 key findings →
Participants: 4,189 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive screening rates remain low. 3 key findings →
Participants: 1,298 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Blood biomarkers are rapidly becoming established for Alzheimer's Disease (AD) diagnosis. 2 key findings →
Participants: 174 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Blood-based biomarkers may differentiate non-AD-related versus AD-related cognitive deficits. 5 key findings →
Participants: 648 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Discriminating between early-onset Alzheimer's disease, non-Alzheimer's disease neurodegeneration and primary psychiatric disorders causes of young-onset neurocognitive symptoms is possible by combining cognitive profiles with blood biomarkers. 4 key findings →
Participants: 18 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Biomarkers in Alzheimer's disease (AD) have the potential to allow early and more accurate diagnosis, predict disease progression, stratify individuals and track response to candidate therapies in drug trials. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Plasma biomarkers of dementia, including phosphorylated tau (p-tau217), offer promise as tools for diagnosis, stratification for clinical trials, monitoring disease progression, and assessing the success of interventions in those living with Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
Participants: 38 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Olfactory dysfunction can indicate early cognitive decline and is associated with dementia symptoms. 4 key findings →
Participants: 30 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
52/100
A robust blood biomarker is urgently needed to facilitate early prognosis for those at risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our findings suggest that, among PSEN1 mutation carriers, females had a greater rate of neurodegeneration than males, yet it did not predict cognitive performance. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Only Aβ burden measured by PET, but not markers of neuroinflammation, differed among cognitively unimpaired elderly with different APOE ε4 gene dose. 3 key findings →
Participants: 19 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In the community, the concentration of AD blood biomarkers varies in relation to medical conditions and systemic inflammation. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Differences in the stability of Aβ42 and p-tau217 may lead to altered p-tau217/Aβ42 ratio results if samples are not handled properly during the pre-analytical testing phase. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
More than 16 million Americans living with cognitive impairment warrant a diagnostic evaluation to determine the cause of this disorder. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Combining MemTrax Memory Test and blood biomarker results is a promising new technique for the early detection of MCI-AD. 3 key findings →
Participants: 101 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
43/100
Red blood cells (RBCs) are characterized by a remarkable elasticity, which allows them to undergo very large deformation when passing through small vessels and capillaries. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
From across this tag
1 of the 27 studies in this tag that have a study page, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 1. The same 1 appear here every time.
Where “Free full text” comes from
Free full text links and the Full text may need a subscription label come from Unpaywall, Europe PMC and OpenAlex records of free copies, checked 10 Oct 2026. A study with neither is unknown, not paywalled. Show only studies that are free to read
How the 0–100 score works — and why some entries are capped
This is alzhub's own score. It is not an official metric, not an impact factor, and no journal, publisher or ranking body endorses it. We built it so that a reader who is not a scientist can tell a landmark trial from a conference abstract without having to already know the difference. Every point comes from one of 20 components, all of them printed on the study itself, so you can disagree with our arithmetic rather than having to trust the total.
- Journal tier up to 10 pts
- Journal's citation record up to 4 pts
- Study design up to 12 pts
- Strength of evidence up to 5 pts
- Peer-review validation up to 10 pts
- How recent up to 5 pts
- Sample size up to 4 pts
- Effect reported up to 3 pts
- Studied in people up to 3 pts
- Randomised / blinded up to 2 pts
- Times cited up to 7 pts
- Citations per year up to 5 pts
- Impact for its field and year up to 6 pts
- Cited by studies here up to 6 pts
- Still being cited up to 4 pts
- Senior author's track record up to 4 pts
- Institution's track record up to 3 pts
- Multi-centre collaboration up to 3 pts
- Indexed in PubMed up to 2 pts
- Free to read up to 2 pts
Journals are placed in ordered tiers, never given a numeric impact factor — we could not verify current impact factors from a source we control, and an invented one would be worse than none. Tier 1 is the top-tier general journals (NEJM, The Lancet, JAMA, Nature, Science, Nature Medicine); tier 2 is the leading specialty journals; tier 3 is every other peer-reviewed journal. A separate part scores how much the journal's own papers are cited, which tells the tier-3 journals apart.
Two rules we don't bend. First, we never fill in a missing value: if a record does not state a sample size or a design, that component scores zero, and if we simply have no data for a part, such as a citation count, that part is left out and the study is scored on the parts we could check. The study card says which. Second, anything that is not a peer-reviewed article is capped at 16/100 and carries a warning chip — so a conference abstract or a company press release can never outrank a peer-reviewed paper, no matter how good it looks.
We rank a rigorous null result — a good trial showing that something does not work — above an early positive finding. Someone deciding whether to buy a supplement is served by that, and the rigour is already counted by the design and journal components.
The score is computed from the published data alone and is reproducible: the same file always yields the same numbers.
See the whole rubric drawn out → — four charts covering all 29,380 studies: how the scores are spread and where the cap bites, which of the 20 components the library is strong and weak on, which subjects rest on stronger evidence, and what kinds of study each subject is actually built from.
What this library is — and isn't
This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 29,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (63.3% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.3%), plus smaller pulls from PubMed, Crossref and medRxiv. If a study, a drug, or a finding isn't here, that is not evidence it doesn't exist in the literature — it may simply not have been pulled in yet.
1,037 records (3.5% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 of those are preprints posted before any journal review, and the rest are conference abstracts, regulatory notices and reports. Every study card on this page states its status plainly, and the score above is capped for anything that isn't a peer-reviewed article.
See the full, machine-readable breakdown of this library's coverage →